Saw Susan in her solo form years ago at Ottawa Bluesfest and have been a fan since. Still lovin' it after she joined up with her husband Derek in the new band. Saw them at Bluesfest as well.

I agree with some others though. There is too little of Derek on the new album. I mean, I love everything that Suan T does (so much so that my wife hates her!). I was introduced to Susan Tedeschi's music while watching the Crossroads concerts on DVD. Since then, I seen Susan T twice in concert. So, I like this new album but I just do not feel driven to listen to it again and again.

I normally listen to my audio CDs & SACDs in 2 Ch Stereo. Yesterday for a change, I played my Spyro Gyra 'Good to Go-Go' SACD through my HT system using my Sony Blu-Ray Player.

The sound quality was superb; however, I'm not sure that I liked the 'surround mix' version as contrasted to the 'stereo mix'. Having instruments playing behind me was a novelty but hardly realistic. It was as if I was sitting on stage in the middle of the band. I have yet to go to a pub or a concert & be seated on the stage within the group.

What was interesting was the difference in the sound between my M2s & EP400s audio system and M22s & Velo 10" subs HT system in similarly shaped rooms. The mid & high end were 'similarly good'; however, the EP400s were more imposing & 'musical' than the Velos. I don't know whether it is the fact the EP400s are just more accurate & capable or I have them cranked up somewhat higher in the mix than 'Audyssey' sets the Velos in my HT thus making them sound more impressive.

Anyway, I think that I prefer the sound stage of 2 Ch Stereo with my EP400s pumping out gobs of dynamic & articulate low end...

A little ambiance, reverb and reflections mixed into the back channels can help recreate being in FRONT of a live stage; having instruments originate around me recreates my being ON stage....which I can't connect with!

Just to argue, I'm going to say that realism is secondary to an engaging experience. There are times to be as true-to-life as possible, but there are also times for artistic license. Why limit the possibilities when there is the opportunity for a wider range of experience? I don't remember when or how it came up in discussion, but someone mentioned before about the excessive bass in a movie scene, how a train (or whatever it was) doesn't sound like that. Was it a documentary? Why hold it to that standard? If the point of the movie is to entertain, why are directors allowed to fudge visuals but not audio?

Of course, I have no problem with debating the effectiveness of each artistic choice on a case-by-case basis, but I think it's an unreasonable expectation that everyone try to capture the world exactly as it exists without imbuing any sort of stylized interpretation. Not only unreasonable, but impossible. So I have no problem with people realizing this and running hard in the opposite direction of "real."